Tell him that they want him to do a commercial about a classic American industry getting back on its feet through hard work and effort, and he'll be all over it. Give him a script with a tie in to football (halftime in America) and keep the context as one of America fighting to improve itself, and he'll be ecstatic.

Toss in socialist images (you saw the union workers with their signs, right?) and the right music and cuts in the monologue, and you could have slapped a "Give Obama a second term" text box at the bottom and no one would have questioned whether this was a political ad. The did what the left always does: Twist words and ideas that have strong meaning to many Americans into something that most Americans don't support at all. Eastwood was a victim of that process IMO.

Wow gbaji, you've gone over the edge on this one. Your argument that the left twists words and arguments (and that they always do this) is based on one premise only - that Eastwood was duped.

This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim.

You can't possibly with a straight face think that anybody here gives you that much credit.

This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim.

You can't possibly with a straight face think that anybody here gives you that much credit.

He can't possibly with a straight face think that this is proper grammar.

This is where you slyly wink while thinking "I know I can't convince gbaji, cause he's on to it, but maybe other folks will believe me if I just lie big enough". You can't possibly with a straight face make that claim. There were no cars in the commercial.

Really?

They show the factory where the cars are being built. In the middle, they show a Ram truck. Toward the end, there's a row of Chryslers coming off the assembly line.

I'm sorry. I should have learned by now that you guys love to ignore context. There were no cars being advertised in the commercial. Therefore, it wasn't a car commercial.

Quote:

You didn't see the commercial, did you?

Yes, I did. WTF? I did watch the **** game.

Quote:

No, it's not about selling the cars.

So you agree that it's not a car commercial. Cause to be a car commercial, it would have to actually be trying to sell you a car.

Quote:

It's a parallel of how Chrysler and the US are at halftime and making a comeback. That's all.

Isn't that exactly what I said it was? And if it's a parallel of Chrysler and the US recovering, and Chrysler's recovery occurred as a result of a big government bailout, then isn't the commercial basically saying that big government bailouts are the way for America to come back? Isn't that what the commercial is advocating we do in the "second half"? I mean, think one step further and you've got it.

What do you think political ads are about? They associate positive things with the candidate (or agenda) you want to promote or negative things with those you want to oppose. Think hard. It's not about selling cars, and it's not even about selling the company. It uses the company's recovery as an example of how America can recover. The ad is about American Recovery. Not cars. And not car companies. It's about how America can/should move forward with recovery.

And the proposed method, while not spelled out in words in the ad itself, is the method used in Detroit. Ergo, the ad is promoting the policies connected with the Democrats agenda for victory in the "second half". People seriously can't see this? Or do people just choose not to? I mean, it's not even that subtle. Imagine the exact same ad with a "Re-elect Obama" text at the end instead of a list of brands. Would anyone not think that it was an effective ad for Obama?

Quote:

Also, my husband loved the commercial. Not because he thought it carried a political message, but because he has a man crush on Clint, like a lot of hetero men in this country.

It was a good commercial. Honestly, if you left out the specific mention of Detroit, it would have been a great non-partisan pro-America piece. By tying the proposed path forward to recovery with the path taken in Detroit, it makes it partisan and political. Even if Eastwood thinks it wasn't, it was. And it's what the audience sees that matters in this case.

By tying the proposed path forward to recovery with the path taken in Detroit, it makes it partisan and political. Even if Eastwood thinks it wasn't, it was. And it's what the audience sees that matters in this case.

I guess you're right. The commercial was what, 120 seconds? Let's round the $1.5b to $2b, since I don't want to confuse you too much.

GOP - 80 seconds of ad time. DEM - 40 seconds of ad time.

I am ******* outraged. Clint was clearly in on it, that fascist GOP *******. Can we move the **** on? Fiat paid for most of the bail out. They thought this would sell cars. The US government has on controlling interest in Chrysler. Every Budweiser ad in the history of the world can be seen in context as a GOP ad. Football, itself, as a paramilitary game of aggression, an be seen as a GOP ad.

If you're ******* insane.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

By tying the proposed path forward to recovery with the path taken in Detroit, it makes it partisan and political. Even if Eastwood thinks it wasn't, it was. And it's what the audience sees that matters in this case.

Dems in control of Congress, TARP gets bailouts for car companies inserted in by Dems, opposed by GOP.

Obama takes white house and Dems gain more control of congress, Stimulus bills toss more money at the car companies.

You get that this is about party agenda, right?

If I were to ask this forum which party they associated with helping the auto industry recover and which party they associated with opposing that recovery, is there any question what the answer would be? I mean, there isn't really any confusion on this, is there? Conservatives overwhelmingly were opposed to the auto company bail outs. Liberals were overwhelmingly for them. There really isn't any question then which "side" benefits by this ad then, is there?

I'm sorry. I should have learned by now that you guys love to ignore context. There were no cars being advertised in the commercial. Therefore, it wasn't a car commercial.

You don't really understand advertising do you.

I'm not the one(s) pretending that there was no political message in that commercial.

Seriously. Replace the list of brands at the end of the ad with text saying "Re-elect Obama", and does anyone here think this isn't an effective political ad? Be honest. So does not putting those words there make it less effective? I'd argue it's just as effective, but a lot less obvious.

So who wants to be the one to point out that when it's against Democrats, how the audience interprets it is more important than what the actual message and the producers of said message say, but when it's against Republicans its the message and the producers of said message that is most important to focus on?

I mean, the two arguments were barely a day apart.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I'm not going back over this whole thread, but was it mentioned that Chrysler ran the same ad last year, only it was with Eminem?

Well, except that they actually highlighted a specific car (the 200), didn't make a clear correlation between the Detroit auto industry and America as a whole, and this one magically came up with the whole "It's halftime in America" during the election year which will determine if Obama gets a second term.

So who wants to be the one to point out that when it's against Democrats, how the audience interprets it is more important than what the actual message and the producers of said message say, but when it's against Republicans its the message and the producers of said message that is most important to focus on?

I mean, the two arguments were barely a day apart.

Huh? Care to elaborate? And I think you got something backwards there.